BREA, Calif.--Nov. 3, 2003--Suzuki Motor Corporation announced
today that the U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for
Suzuki's product disparagement lawsuit against Consumers Union
to proceed to trial. Denying Consumers Union's petition for
review, according to George F. Ball, Suzuki's managing counsel,
the Supreme Court left standing the decision of the U.S. Court
of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that upheld Suzuki's right to
a jury trial on its charges that Consumers Union rigged its
1988 testing of the Suzuki Samurai and then repeatedly lied
about the test results. Consumers Union, the publisher of
Consumer Reports magazine, has thus failed in its last legal
maneuver to avoid facing public scrutiny of its dishonest
Samurai testing.

"Suzuki is very pleased it will finally be able to
present its evidence of Consumers Union's test-rigging to a
California jury. While serving as a marketing and fund raising
tool for Consumers Union, its false Samurai claims continue to
severely damage Suzuki and its dealers. The ultimate winners in
this case, however, will be consumers as the long hidden facts
come to light. The evidence that Suzuki has discovered in its
lawsuit shows that key executives from Consumers Union rigged
the Samurai tests and misled the public about the Samurai's
performance in those tests. By refusing to shield Consumers
Union from accountability before a jury, the Supreme Court's
action supports the principle that the First Amendment protects
honest reporting but it does not protect publishers from a jury
trial where there is evidence that the publisher knowingly
deceived its readers."

Suzuki has been fighting for the
opportunity to present its case against Consumers Union to a
jury since 1996. Suzuki's 1996 lawsuit challenged statements
made by Consumers Union when, in its 60th Anniversary issue of
Consumer Reports, and elsewhere, Consumers Union repeated the
long-discredited claims that tests it conducted in 1988 showed
the Suzuki Samurai "easily rolls over in turns."

In the
court of appeals decision, which the Supreme Court declined to
review, Judge Wallace Tashima, writing for the majority, ruled
that "(a) reasonable jury could find by clear and convincing
evidence that CU sought to produce a predetermined result in
the Samurai test." He emphasized that at the time Consumers
Union criticized the Samurai in 1988, "CU needed to boost its
revenues to complete its capital campaign (for a new building)"
and that "(t)he evidence of financial motive dovetails with the
evidence of test-rigging."

According to the Ninth
Circuit's concurring opinion, authored by Judge Susan Graber,
"a reasonable jury (could) find ... that what CU discovered was
that the Suzuki Samurai did not roll over 'easily' in turns,
but had to be coaxed."

Suzuki was also represented in
its Opposition to Consumers Union's Supreme Court Petition by
Robert Fiske of Davis, Polk & Wardwell, and Gene Schaerr of
Sidley, Austin, Brown & Wood. Additional information about
Suzuki's case against Consumers Union can be found at
www.suzuki-consumersunion.com.

For more information or
to schedule an interview, contact Joan Gladstone at
949-633-9900 (cell) or 949-475-6979 ext. 204 (office) or
jgladstone@gladstonepr.com.